Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
[QUOTE]I am embarrassed.
I wish I could get the part of my life back that was spent on your manuscript and this discussion.
You have been asked to present a quantitative calculation of how the isotope effect in Tin can be fit using your model. Instead you waive your hands furiously and hope that the uneducated will think you understand what you are talking about. Here's a hint, there are probably only 3 people reading this thread anymore. 2 of them aren't fooled by this.
You haven't and can't fit the isotope effect quantitatively using your model. Hence you have no standing to complain if there are deficits with BCS. Let your model stand or fall on its own merits. The BCS complaint is a smokescreen.
Dang, whleere did I put my Cardinal's hat now, Gallieo?
You are funny I must say; but it is clear that you do not know your solid state physics. To calculation to do the isotope effect on the energy levels in tin, you need to know the elastic constants of tin (which I am sure are available) and then you have to derive spring constants etc. It is quite a lengthy calculation; but it works and has been done many times in, for example. diamond. There are experts that can do this better than I can; unless I spend a lot of time strudying up the required mathematics. I know in principle how this can be done; but have more important issues on my plate right now. In this case D A Morgan's suggestion of having a co-author, who do such calculations on a daily basis, would apply.
My model does stand on the merit that it calculates aspects that BCS theory just cannot do. As I have said BCS cannot explain how a current can flow so that the charge carriers have a velocity without having kinetic energy. If they have kinetic energy, this energy has to be dissipated and this is the source of resistance as any schoolboy should know.
